Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2017 Draft Almanac

[THE_GUN]

Definitely the case

Anyone who ranks Treloar for example ahead of Cotchin is a muppet

And I suggest that they're either blinded by bias and/or relying on the stat sheet

Dont think there would be many AFL watchers that would take Rockliff ahead of Cotchin if they were forming an AFL team either, Just going by statts is not a good way to select best 22 players.

P.Cripps playing just 15 games compared to Cotchin's 25 games

If Statts are the benchmark for the top 20 then Surely Rory Laird & Sam Docherty are to be included easily over Cripps with the quantity of poss and the DE

 

[THE_GUN]

Stats matter.

Cotchin is a damaging ball user and that does count and as others have identified he is winning it in important positions. Placing in the 20s in all the key categories by position, averaging less than a goal per game and placing outside the top 60 for disposals per game.

He was a top 20 midfielder, if not top 10 midfielder in 2011 and 2012 when his disposal, clearance, inside 50 and goal per game numbers were all higher. 2017 is his better recent season with his tackle numbers at a career high with his other numbers fairly similar to recent years. But you have to find more than 600 disposals per 25 games. An average of 23.6 disposals per game for a midfielder who averages less than a goal per game isn't elite in today's game.

As a Richmond supporter that watches alot of games , I can honestly tell you that Cotchins 2017 is way better than his 2011 and just as good as his 2012 if not better , Stats not give you a full indication on a players value

You mention 600 disposals per game for a midfielder who averages less than a goal a game, Cripps (24.9)averages 1.3 poss a game more than cotch (23.6)
Cripps only av .2 goals a game compared to cotchins .6 and cotchin played 25 v 15 for Cripps
There is a bee's dick difference in just stats but visually in 2017 Cotchin is easily top 20 in performance and value on the ground.

 

[LukeHodge15]

Kelly could be one I revise from that swiftly completed list. 9-13 maybe. On review, his tackle numbers are much higher than I had expected. And with his contested possessions, clearances, inside 50s and goals per game also very sound. Anywhere around 10 is right.

U clearly dont watch that much AFL. Obviously ur time on the under aged kids takes up 99% of ur time. I don't have to look at Kelly's stats and numbers to know this kid is already clearly in the top 5 players in the comp.

 

[GoGrows]

baseball, NFL, cricket you get a very very good indication of a players worth purely from statistics.

AFL and basketball, stats tell a big part of the story, there is SO much that is not caught on the stats sheet, or require very advanced analytics to capture.

Only those with a full Champion Data account would be in a position to truly evaluate a players value just going off statistics. The public only gets the most rudimentary AFL stats.

 

[Joao]

Of the midfielders in the comp now there are only 3 players I'd have ahead of Kelly and that is Dusty, Danger and Fyfe.

 

[LukeHodge15]

I don't need CD stats though to tell me Kelly is a superstar.

Of the midfielders in the comp now there are only 3 players I'd have ahead of Kelly and that is Dusty, Danger and Fyfe.

I'm taking him ahead of Fyfe. I don't even think it's arguable.

He sits at 3 with a rocket. What is he 22?

 

[Joao]

I don't need CD stats though to tell me Kelly is a superstar.

I'm taking him ahead of Fyfe. I don't even think it's arguable.

He sits at 3 with a rocket. What is he 22?

He is nowhere near as dominant as Fyfe when on and isn't as good in the forward half. He is more "complete" and may surpass them all but I stand by my 3.

 

[db26]

Gday mate thought Hayden McLean and Jordan Butts were unlucky to not be drafted both plenty upside for KP players at least rookie spots.I rate Mclean more tho and better upside.

 

[6yearsold]

They do matter. But, AFL is the sort of game where I think one should use stats to clarify what they are seeing, rather than it being the be all and end all that can explain the players value as it can be in other sports such as baseball and to a lesser extent NFL.

so many variables in AFL that i think stats can very much muddy the waters. AFL is similar to basketball in that respect.

not to mention the fact that the stats that matter in AFL are not actually available to the public.

i would challenge you to watch games without having access to the stats and note down what you are seeing. its amazing how much our opinion on players is influenced by the box score and not by the influence they are having on games.

you took all of that from jake nail's article on fox.

 

[LukeHodge15]

He is nowhere near as dominant as Fyfe when on and isn't as good in the forward half. He is more "complete" and may surpass them all but I stand by my 3.

And I don't have a dog in this fight. #justsayin

 

[Joao]

And I don't have a dog in this fight. #justsayin

Yeah that is the easy argument. Not my style but each to their own.

 

[GoGrows]

you took all of that from jake nail's article on fox.

i have never read a jake niall article in my life.

 

[LukeHodge15]

Yeah that is the easy argument. Not my style but each to their own.

I love Fyfe. Absolute gun. But Kelly is special. He does things with his kicking Fyfe could only dream of doing.

 

[THE_GUN]

People are selling Nat Fyfe short here , The guy is a champion and was unstoppable before his broken leg , No reason wont get there again

I have not seen Kelly dominate teams like Fyfe did in his Brownlow year

 

[Joao]

I love Fyfe. Absolute gun. But Kelly is special. He does things with his kicking Fyfe could only dream of doing.

If you are going to cite Kelly's strength (kicking and you can add speed) which separates him from Fyfe you have to mention the two areas that Kelly will never be in Fyfes league at - contested ball and contested marking.

People are selling Nat Fyfe short here , The guy is a champion and was unstoppable before his broken leg , No reason wont get there again

I have not seen Kelly dominate teams like Fyfe did in his Brownlow year

This.

 

[Skeptic]

They do matter. But, AFL is the sort of game where I think one should use stats to clarify what they are seeing, rather than it being the be all and end all that can explain the players value as it can be in other sports such as baseball and to a lesser extent NFL.

so many variables in AFL that i think stats can very much muddy the waters. AFL is similar to basketball in that respect.

not to mention the fact that the stats that matter in AFL are not actually available to the public.

i would challenge you to watch games without having access to the stats and note down what you are seeing. its amazing how much our opinion on players is influenced by the box score and not by the influence they are having on games.

you my friend are a profoundly insightful individual...

really good insight

 

[yaco55]

Do we need for Knightmare's thread to be hijacked - The last two or three pages can go to another thread.

 

[kangaspurs]

Yeah, I love Josh Kelly as a footballer ( ) but I'd take a fully fit Fyfe over everyone, even Danger and Dusty.

 

[HedgeFund]

Do we need for Knightmare's thread to be hijacked - The last two or three pages can go to another thread.

Maybe just lock it up and move on

 

[Sleezy]

Of the midfielders in the comp now there are only 3 players I'd have ahead of Kelly and that is Dusty, Danger and Fyfe.

Josh Kennedy, Bont, Pendles, R Gray also have the runs on the board. Kelly may end up being better but he has not had a better season than any of the above.

If Selwood, GAJ, Beams can get back to their best, he is behind them too. That rounds out the top 10. Comfortably in the next group with Sloane, Zorko, Mitchell, Hannebery etc.

 

[Joao]

Josh Kennedy, Bont, Pendles, R Gray also have the runs on the board. Kelly may end up being better but he has not had a better season than any of the above.

If Selwood, GAJ, Beams can get back to their best, he is behind them too. That rounds out the top 10. Comfortably in the next group with Sloane, Zorko, Mitchell, Hannebery etc.

I am more referring to him as a package - ie his age and scope for improvement. He also comfortably had a better year than Bont IMO. JPK, Pendles and Gray are currently better players but on the older side hence why I would take Kelly.

I'd take him over the other guys you mentioned too since if you are allow to say "if they get back to their best" then I will say what if Kelly continues to improve?

 

[HedgeFund]

He also comfortably had a better year than Bont IMO.

He also had a superior year to Pendelbury on pretty much all levels.

 

[Joao]

He also had a superior year to Pendelbury on pretty much all levels.

I did watch a fair bit of the Pies this year but wasn't sure it was the case. Happy to accept the ruling.

Would still take Pendles in a GF today over Kelly though (assuming both fit).

 

[Knightmare]

They do matter. But, AFL is the sort of game where I think one should use stats to clarify what they are seeing, rather than it being the be all and end all that can explain the players value as it can be in other sports such as baseball and to a lesser extent NFL.

so many variables in AFL that i think stats can very much muddy the waters. AFL is similar to basketball in that respect.

not to mention the fact that the stats that matter in AFL are not actually available to the public.

i would challenge you to watch games without having access to the stats and note down what you are seeing. its amazing how much our opinion on players is influenced by the box score and not by the influence they are having on games.

I always watch the games then access the stats afterwards.

You're telling me to do what I already do.

Every game I watch, I've got pen and paper and I'm taking notes constantly. It's what I do if anyone has ever seen me at a junior game. And it's the same with AFL games.

With stats, it's just understanding which stats to value and to what extent. And everyone over time will get that feel, and add it onto whatever they see in game.

depends on how you look at it.

id rather 23.6 disposals from Cotchin than 30 from Taylor Adams.

a difference of one disposal per quarter is immaterial to me. but its easy to focus on numbers when we put them at the epicentre of the argument rather than the quality of actual play.

With Cotchin averaging pretty much the same contested possessions, clearances, centre clearances and hitting the scoreboard more of the two while using it better. I also (ever so slightly) favour the contributions of Cotchin on 2017 form to Adams, despite the disposal disparity.

Adams with ball in hand is a really interesting player. Occasional skill errors, but by Collingwood standards, he's actually not one of the worse players to have it in the hands of. He looks for aggressive options by foot and also will provide run - which not enough at Collingwood do.

Like Cotchin, Adams is a 20-30 in the game mid for mine.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Cotchin turned himself into a poor-middle class man's Michael Voss this season

His number of possessions is irrelevant

He's well ahead of Adams and Treloar based on 2017 form, to mention 2 names getting overhyped